Hedonism is the most logical philosophical ideology

Everything outside of this world is hypothetical.

A God, a grand simulation, all of it is unknown.

The only thing I know for sure is that a burger makes me feel pretty good. 

Now whether to you its sex, a cigarette, or a good book is irrelevant. 

No God or simulation master can judge you for acting as you were programmed to act, I feel joy when I debate and therefore I always will.

Mass hedonism would not lead to the breakdown of society, in fact in my opinion the world is already mostly a hedonist world.  

Times square billboards advertised the man-made horror that is oreo flavored Coca Cola,

Churches are filled with those who wish to spend ever second with that one person that makes them the happiest. 

I ask you, as you read this, and as you reflect on your future plans, what do you do not for some hedonistic reason?

I work hard to earn money to ensure I can buy myself a beer when I please.

People take care of their children to gain the biologically encoded boost in dopamine when a baby giggles, or when a toddler does something stupid.

People don't murder in the streets because of the negative response they will get from others.

I could go on for hours, but in an effort to not bore myself and you, but I'll stop.

In conclusion humans do everything for hedonistic pleasure simply because it is the only thing we know for certain. 

Being that we're talking about a person. What is a person?

A living mobile creature.  A creature that lives off movement internally as well as externally. That's outwardly and inwardly. That is physically, mentally, positionally, on and on and on.

The opposing side mentioned God so I felt inclined to mention of the scripture that lines up with this. In him we live and move and have our being.

In a person's movement, the person moves towards a point that will give pleasure and happiness.

That nominal phrase "the pursuit of happiness".

So it is true a living moving person will move as he or she lives as he or she moves towards the point of goal that will bring delight.

It may bring delight. Uh-oh. Why would it might bring delight?

That's because of the possibility of what may become of something can be the opposite of happiness or pleasure.

Well why move towards it?

Well being that the person is a living moving being, the person is required to move towards it in order to comply with what the person is.

In order to continue to live , continue to move, the person has to make that move. That is very logical. 

Regardless of whether there is pleasure in it or not, when it comes to being a person, this would be more logical than that.

Everything in a person, all the person's members are requiring movement and innately compel moving towards what continues the movement.

Such as the movement of lungs. The required movement of it is required for muscles in the person. Which the muscles require movement which we call exercise. 

Now is there pleasure in the midst of doing exercise?

Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless, it is not the end all be all so it is not the most logical to hold to as a standard.

So philosophically of what a person is, the very nature thereof as a living moving being, the most logical element there in is that what is living, makes a living, so forth and so on. So out of that you may get delight or dread.

To live life solely so that there is a happy result will most likely be counterintuitive to the nature of a person.

Not only that but has proven in certainty to be illegal or forbidden. People often are imprisoned for trying to seek happiness with every which a way.

Case and point. I'm happy all day , every moment while being intoxicated. If that's what it takes to just be hedonistic and nothing else but, we have those that will fight to take a part of that happiness away and bust it up .

I'll respond to some things mentioned being I'm finished with my side.

Is this your belief?

You say mass and mostly. But if hedonism is the most logical, why not altogether hedonism than a lot or mostly?

Even the scripture teaches there are times for different things, let alone happiness. Jesus said  you will have sorrow, but your sorrow will be turned into joy.

1. Exercise 

2. Consume select things for a healthy diet

3. Labor for pay

4. Communicate with individuals that may be inhospitable 

5. Pay taxes

6. Undergo dental evaluations

7. Debate

8. Listen to virtual/spiritual messages

9. Operate motor vehicles

10. Groom and dress

11. Clean inside dwelling place/outside dwelling place 

12. Tying shoes

13. Read/write 

14. Do math

15. Learn/research 

On and on and on

16. Take medicine

Other things away from me that other people do such as undergo medical treatment or corrective surgery. Participate in politics, voting, going to meetings, take political office, protesting, being an activist, chastising people, disciplining children, correcting a spouse or someone. Going to visit folks in hospitals, nursing homes, going to religious churches, going to funerals, going to memorials, etc.

Now people will have different reasons. But each of these items, you can do these things and it's not for pleasure. The very act itself of these things do not constitute pleasure. The act of doing these things in their very instance can be unhappy.

Is this all you work for? Is this all you use money for?

You don't mean all people do you?

In conclusion humans do everything for hedonistic pleasure simply because it is the only thing we know for certain. 

I take it not all humans. It is not the only thing. We also know what would be non hedonistic and we do things for non hedonistic purposes just the same.

Just some last minute additions to non hedonistic activities. 

-Doing construction work

-Performing security duties/secret service duties 

-Acting in military service

-Space exploration 

I saw a recent video about research teams that have to survive and maintain in an isolated South pole during the most dreadful of times and weather.

Ok I'll leave it there.

I can love something without hedonistic value. Such as reprimanding a person. Due to loving the person, I discipline the person. But there's no pleasure in the chastising. But it's very logical to do so.

But the very act of taking medicine can be unpleasant. That's why I said in the very act itself. We can't just focus on the result of possible pleasure alone. If you're going to be a hedonist holding hedonism as the most logical value, everything has to be tied to pleasure. Otherwise you're not a true complete hedonist.

Which proves my point that hedonism is not the most logical standard to live life because we have to do a mixture of pleasant and unpleasant things to live life or extend it.

I noticed how you dodged the other points. It was easy to cherry pick some points to make a positive case for, right. But each one of those positive cases, you can have a negative one. Each of us can make a subjective bias.

That's fine. It just proves that for us to live , we will have both sides to it not making either one the most logical but a mixture of both.

Your position is just for the pleasant side. I'm arguing you will be bound for both logically.

I feel for this debate I must define hedonism.

"the ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life."

You seem to misunderstand this.

Doing something that is momentarily painful or unenjoyable, however will result in more joy down the line IS a hedonistic choice.

Non hedonistic choices are choices that do NOT bring joy for you.

You are confusing hedonism with the pursuit of short-term joy.

A hedonist will go to the doctor even if the car ride is not enjoyable, because the pain of not going is greater.

This fact disproves all but one of your points which I found interesting 

Since we're talking about definitions, let's do a search for logic on the Google search engine.

Logic - reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Validity has to do with facts .

A Google search for valid.

(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

The fact is or the truth is, in order for us to live we do what it is to live which will come with it happiness and dread. As I mentioned there are certain things even to the end of them are not concerning happiness. Such as doing research in the South pole or worshipping in a religion.

Even paying a bill or sending a bill, cutting grass, making up the bed are not ending in pleasure. You may be content or satisfied.

Not the same thing. Being relieved from something is not necessarily the same thing as being pleased or delighted.

My learning something, doing algebra, thinking critically, doing a science experiment, reading a book, etc.

The opposing side maybe thinking about the end result in all things has to be pleasure filled.

Take a person stricken with infirmity. On tons of medications, doctor visits, etc. The person will have a mixture of joy and misery but the person is living and chooses to live knowing happiness will not always be the end of each day or goal.

See those that are strictly hedonistic, put them in the same situation, they're leaning towards the suicidal, euthanasia side of outcomes. If I can't live and be happy always , let me die. People that are told they absolutely cannot live a hedonistic lifestyle because it will kill them, it is not the most logical or the matter of fact way to live. What would be most hedonistic is a high cholesterol diet, drugs and alcohol. Them eating what is subpar and anything else they have to do to live compared to what is truly pleasing to them all around may take some pleasure and agony or drastically limited pleasure and extended misery.

That's why many people fail to stay the course, to stay on a restricted diet and healthier lifestyle. They would stay on it and continue if it was more enjoyable or actually hedonistic. It cuts in to hedonism, depleting it and to much development extinguishes it altogether. Is that illogical? No . These folks are extending their lives ultimately.

Touching the school subject, raising up children, a lot of things are done to discipline and establish proper behavioral conduct. To what end?

So the child grows up living as a law abiding citizen. The end goal is not happiness. The priority is , I have to teach a child this and that so that he or she keeps breathing in spite of the society we have between the law and the public getting in trouble with one or both.

Speaking of law. My going to court to settle a dispute because fair is fair and not necessarily looking to feel good. A lot of court cases carry a lot of drama , turmoil and stress. Even when the judgment is settled in my favor. The whole legal situation at just the thought of it upsets me. The other party and myself may not be on amicable terms. It's unpleasant but I can be satisfied with a fair or justified verdict. It's not because I want instant joy or gratification like at an amusement park.

The whole litigation ordeal was traumatic.

I don't expect such drama at an amusement park .

That's why I would go to an amusement park.

You ask a person, what do you do for fun, for amusement? 

Do you go to small claims court or an amusement park?

The person be like "What? An amusement park of course".

Everything we do logically is not tied up in amusement. So between the court and the park, I'd go to either one for pleasure if that was the case.

Let me move on because I'll just go on and on.

Ok so you agree that you do have to do non hedonistic things so you're not an hedonist.

Furthermore, is this in all cases that the results are more joyous?

The fact that short term joy exists proves hedonism is not the standard. For instance, engaging in a sexual relationship. People know there will be ups and downs engaging in the relationship. Especially when we consider break up or dissolvement. I know when parting does happen it doesn't feel good. So looking back in hindsight, it looks like you got involved with someone just to be depressed. Saying that people will get involved just to get sole pleasure is a lie. They will get pleasure, misery, strife, stress and conflict. 

If I'm a hedonist I would avoid a sexual relationship and most likely will just get prostitution service. That is pure hedonism. If I want to eat anything I want at the cost of my life because it feels good, that's hedonism. 

If I have to live most of my days on medicinal treatment, and once in a while I get some enjoyment, that's not hedonism. People that are incarcerated that wish they can be on the outside are not living out hedonistic lives. Perhaps it was their hedonistic lives that got them locked up.

You're defining hedonism in spite of the inappropriate definition you gave, you're defining it inappropriately still making it really resemble my position. 

If I'm a hedonist, I would get high. See a hedonist will not withstand the route of non pleasure. Any immediate pleasure will be pursued. You're putting hedonism on a spectrum and you're leaning further and further back to non hedonism. If the doctor prescribes medicine that will provide some relief or possible more discomforting side effects, there's too many variables to a pure hedonist that would just take the route of medicinal marijuana, morphine, oxycodone, opium. Remember, hedonism, the priority is pleasure, not health or life.

Once you get to all these other elements, it's not just about pleasure. But you're blurring all of these things into a spectrum and pretty much saying non hedonism is hedonism .

Not necessarily. For instance, I discipline the person to aid in that person being a law abiding citizen. But why don't I have joy ? The person is still living a life that does not please me but will not land the person in prison. These are the multiple variables that doesn't make life simply logically and philosophically hedonistic. 

Or kill him or herself for one.  A hedonist that can't be pleased unless this or that, what do you think that person will do?

A true hedonist will do it. So it's not false. If the person will not do it? The person is a false hedonist. That part is false. You can call that false.

Anytime you sacrifice pleasure, you're not a pleasure seeker. You can't seek something by sacrificing it. Do you think sacrificing, killing myself pleases me to save somebody else? This gunshot wound to my neck or chest isn't pleasurable. But it saved a child or somebody I wanted to protect.

All of these examples I'm giving prove that logically when it comes to living life, just seeking pleasure alone is not the most logical. There are too many variables and factors. Again you're really just conflating non hedonism with hedonism calling it all hedonism.

If 80 percent of what I did was non pleasurable whether it resulted in pleasure or not, am I a hedonist?

A person that knows how to accomplish what I do but in a pleasurable 80 percent and I choose not to do it that way, is that person the true hedonist?

What is the difference between a hedonist and a non hedonist?

The spectrum at one end is hedonism and at the other non hedonism. The more you itemize scenarios that involve more non pleasurable things even just to get to a pleasurable result, the more you are leaving the one end (hedonism) moving towards the other(non hedonism). If you try to blanket most or even the whole spectrum as hedonistic, it comes back to the question again of what is the difference between a hedonist and non hedonist.

This is where drawing the clear cut line is relative to not blur it.

Come back with those answers next round.

Then my argument comes in when it doesn't, then what? When it is not maximized but you continue on to live , is it still logical to life?

Well you're still alive in the end being that we're talking about results. But if I'm a hedonist it would mean forget living then. So it is not most logical to rely on that type of a stance to live life.

Sure you can. If you can't counter all of them then you leave scenarios on the table that support non hedonism.

If I were you I would try to counter everything and or enlist a part 2 to this topic expanding the character limit to the maximum.

Opposing side forfeits. Case closed.

But I'll summarize basically for those that may have gotten lost in the shuffle.

Hedonism is about seeking pleasure.

The opposing side tried to argue that seeking pleasure as well as non pleasure is being a hedonist.

Then I have to ask a question, what is the difference between a hedonist and a non hedonist?

A non hedonist doesn't necessarily try to avoid pleasure at all costs. That's just not the person's focus or priority in all things as a goal.

So the opposing side conflating these things was an issue. It more or less caused the opposing side to forfeit.

To live life , it'll be pleasurable and non pleasurable to live it out. Not every single thing will result in pleasure. 

If I go to court to pay a judgment to keep me out of jail, I'm not happy going to the court to pay nor would I be in jail. But I want to live life out of jail. 

Somebody can say living life out of jail is pleasurable. Again, living life is combination of both. It's not pleasurable when I continue to pay a judgment, court order or allow a wage garnishment. This is one of the many stresses I may have living life.

If I continue to work a job I don't like to live life, you can try to argue the end goal, end goal, end goal. But I'm still living life, doing things that are not pleasurable but miserable to me continuously.

This is why I say a hedonist is not just relying on end goals but the methods as well to those end goals. Otherwise you'd have a mixture of pleasure and non pleasure seeking activities, then we're back at the difference of a hedonist versus someone who isn't.

Logically to the philosophical approach of our lives, everything is in a cycle and in repetition you see.  So in order to make hedonism stand out , that cycle of doing things over and over has to be a contrast from non hedonism.

A hedonist will seek pleasure not just in end goals as life is not just made up of end goals. We're talking about living life. To live it, you also incorporate the means as well. 

A non hedonist is not concerned about pleasurable means or accepts that you can't always have pleasurable means to an end that is pleasurable or not. Remember, the end can be a life that has constant strife. Which a hedonist may weigh the pros and cons and check out. A hedonist will not only seek living a life with no strife but will be more concerned trying to find pleasurable means first. Why? It's because hedonists are pleasure seekers.

If I am a hedonist and I'm not looking at a pleasure filled life incorporating pleasurable causes as well as effects, I'm checking out. Otherwise if I want to live or have life , I have to concede my position of hedonism to non hedonism.